How do groups get anything done? Right? How do you organize a group of individuals so that the output of the group is something coherent and of lasting value, instead of just being chaos? And the economic framing of that problem is called coordination costs. And a coordination cost is essentially all of the financial or institutional difficulties in arranging group output. And we've had a classic answer for coordination costs, which is, if you want to coordinate the work of a group of people, you start an institution, right? You raise some resources. You found something. It can be private or public. It can be for profit or not profit. It can be large or small. But you get these resources together. You found an institution, and you use the institution to coordinate the activities of the group.
Cum duc grupurile ceva la bun sfarsit? Corect? Cum organizezi un grup de persoane astfel incat rezultatele grupului reprezinta ceva coerent si cu valoare durabila, si nu doar haos? Si cadrul economic al acelei probleme este numit costuri de coordonare. Si un cost de coordonare reprezinta, in esenta, toate dificultatile financiare si institutionale legate de aranjarea rezultatelor grupului. Si am avut un raspuns clasic pentru costurile de coordonare care este ca daca vrei sa coordonezi munca unui grup de persoane, creezi o institutie, corect? Aduni ceva resurse. Finantezi ceva. Poate fi o entitate privata sau publica. Poate fi orientat pe profit sau non-profit. Poate fi mare sau mica. Dar aceste resurse sunt puse laolalta. Ai creat o institutie, si folosesti aceasta institutie pentru a coordona activitatile grupului.
More recently, because the cost of letting groups communicate with each other has fallen through the floor -- and communication costs are one of the big inputs to coordination -- there has been a second answer, which is to put the cooperation into the infrastructure, to design systems that coordinate the output of the group as a by-product of the operating of the system, without regard to institutional models. So, that's what I want to talk about today. I'm going to illustrate it with some fairly concrete examples, but always pointing to the broader themes.
Mai recent, deoarece costurile de a permite grupurilor sa comunice cu celelalte au scazut dramatic-- iar costurile de comunicare sunt unul dintre marile input-uri la coordonare -- a fost dat un al doilea raspuns, care este acela de a pune cooperarea in infrastructura, de a crea sisteme care coordoneaza rezultatele unui grup ca un produs aditional al operarii sistemului fara legatura cu modelele institutionale. Despre acest subiect voi vorbi astazi. Am sa ilustrez acest subiect cu cateva exemple destul de concrete, dar facand intotdeauna trimitere la teme mai largi.
So, I'm going to start by trying to answer a question that I know each of you will have asked yourself at some point or other, and which the Internet is purpose-built to answer, which is, where can I get a picture of a roller-skating mermaid? So, in New York City, on the first Saturday of every summer, Coney Island, our local, charmingly run-down amusement park, hosts the Mermaid Parade. It's an amateur parade; people come from all over the city; people get all dressed up. Some people get less dressed up. Young and old, dancing in the streets. Colorful characters, and a good time is had by all. And what I want to call your attention to is not the Mermaid Parade itself, charming though it is, but rather to these photos. I didn't take them. How did I get them? And the answer is: I got them from Flickr.
Deci voi incepe incercand sa raspund la intrebarea pe care stiu ca fiecare dintre voi si-a pus-o la un moment sau altul si pentru care Internet-ul este creat sa raspunda, si anume, de unde pot obtine o fotografie a sirenei care se da cu rolele? Deci, in New York, in prima sambata din fiecare vara, Coney Island, parcul nostru local de distractii inepuizabile, gazduieste Parada Sirenelor. Este o parada a amatorilor, vin oameni din tot orasul, toti imbracati in costume. Altii mai putin. Tineri si batrani, dansand pe strazi. Personaje colorate, si toti se distreaza. Si nu vreau sa va atrag atentia catre Parada Sirenelor in sine, oricat de fermecatoare ar fi, ci mai curand catre aceste fotografii. Nu le-am facut eu. Cum le-am obtinut? Raspunsul este: Le-am descarcat de pe Flickr.
Flickr is a photo-sharing service that allows people to take photos, upload them, share them over the Web and so forth. Recently, Flickr has added an additional function called tagging. Tagging was pioneered by Delicious and Joshua Schachter. Delicious is a social bookmarking service. Tagging is a cooperative infrastructure answer to classification. Right? If I had given this talk last year, I couldn't do what I just did, because I couldn't have found those photos. But instead of saying, we need to hire a professional class of librarians to organize these photos once they're uploaded, Flickr simply turned over to the users the ability to characterize the photos. So, I was able to go in and draw down photos that had been tagged "Mermaid Parade." There were 3,100 photos taken by 118 photographers, all aggregated and then put under this nice, neat name, shown in reverse chronological order. And I was then able to go and retrieve them to give you that little slideshow.
Flickr este un serviciu de photo-sharing care permite oamenilor sa faca fotografii, sa le incarce, si sa le partajeze prin web si asa mai departe. Recent, Flickr a adaugat o functie aditionala numita tagging (etichetare). Tagging a fost creat de catre Del.icio.us si Joshua Schachter. Del.icio.us este un serviciu de book-marking social. Tagging este un raspuns de infrastructura cooperativa la clasificare. Corect? Daca as fi tinut acest discurs anul trecut, nu as fi putut face ceea ce am facut, fiindca nu as fi putut gasi aceste fotografii. Dar in loc sa spun, trebuie sa angajam bibliotecari profesionisti ca sa organizam aceste fotografii odata ce sunt incarcate, Flickr pur si simplu a dat utilizatorilor capacitatea sa descrie fotografiile. Deci am putut sa merg si sa descarc fotografiile care aveau tag-ul "Parada Sirenelor." Am gasit 3.100 fotografii facute de 118 fotografi, toate puse laolalta sub acest nume frumos, dispuse in ordine cronologica inversa. Si am putut sa ma duc si sa le obtin pentru a va putea arata aceasta mica prezentare.
Now, what hard problem is being solved here? And it's -- in the most schematic possible view, it's a coordination problem, right? There are a large number of people on the Internet, a very small fraction of them have photos of the Mermaid Parade. How do we get those people together to contribute that work? The classic answer is to form an institution, right? To draw those people into some prearranged structure that has explicit goals. And I want to call your attention to some of the side effects of going the institutional route.
Acum, ce problema dificila a fost rezolvata aici? Si este in cel mai schematic mod posibil, o problema de coordonare, corect? Este un numar mare de persoane pe Internet, o mica parte a acestora au fotografii de la Parada Sirenelor. Cum punem laolalta aceste persoane pentru a contribui la aceasta munca? Raspunsul clasic este formarea unei institutii, corect? Sa atragem aceste persoane intr-o structura pre-existenta care are scopuri explicite. Si va atrag atentia la cateva dintre efectele colaterale ale alegerii caii institutionale.
First of all, when you form an institution, you take on a management problem, right? No good just hiring employees, you also have to hire other employees to manage those employees and to enforce the goals of the institution and so forth. Secondly, you have to bring structure into place. Right? You have to have economic structure. You have to have legal structure. You have to have physical structure. And that creates additional costs. Third, forming an institution is inherently exclusionary. You notice we haven't got everybody who has a photo. You can't hire everyone in a company, right? You can't recruit everyone into a governmental organization. You have to exclude some people. And fourth, as a result of that exclusion, you end up with a professional class. Look at the change here. We've gone from people with photos to photographers. Right? We've created a professional class of photographers whose goal is to go out and photograph the Mermaid Parade, or whatever else they're sent out to photograph.
In primul rand, cand formezi o institutie, ai deja o problema de management, corect? Nu e destul sa angajezi personal. Trebuie sa angajezi si persoane care sa ii conduca pe acesti angajati si care sa indeplineasca scopurile acestei institutii si asa mai departe. In al doilea rand, trebuie sa creezi o structura. Corect? Trebuie sa ai o structura economica. Trebuie sa ai o structura juridica. Trebuie sa ai o structura fizica. Si asta creeaza costuri aditionale. In al treilea rand, formarea unei institutii este inerent exclusivista. Observati ca nu-i avem pe toti cei care au o fotografie. Nu poti sa angajezi pe toti intr-o companie, corect? Nu poti sa recrutezi pe toti intr-o organizatie guvernamentala. Trebuie sa excluzi anumite persoane. Si, in al patrulea rand, ca rezultat al excluderii, ai ca rezultat o clasa profesionala. Uitati-va aici la schimbare. Am trecut de la oameni cu fotografii la fotografi. Nu-i asa? Am creat o clasa profesionala de fotografi al carei scop este sa mearga si sa fotografieze Parada Sirenelor sau orice altceva sunt trimisi sa fotografieze.
When you build cooperation into the infrastructure, which is the Flickr answer, you can leave the people where they are and you take the problem to the individuals, rather than moving the individuals to the problem. You arrange the coordination in the group, and by doing that you get the same outcome, without the institutional difficulties. You lose the institutional imperative. You lose the right to shape people's work when it's volunteer effort, but you also shed the institutional cost, which gives you greater flexibility. What Flickr does is it replaces planning with coordination. And this is a general aspect of these cooperative systems.
Cand construiesti cooperarea intr-o infrastructura, care este raspunsul Flickr, poti sa lasi oamenii unde sunt si dai problema persoanelor decat sa muti indivizii catre problema. Coordonarea este aranjata intr-un grup si facand asta ai acelasi rezultat fara dificultati de ordin institutional. Imperativul institutional se pierde. Pierzi dreptul de a influenta munca oamenilor cand efortul este voluntar, dar ai eliminat costul institutional, care iti da mai multa flexibilitate. Flickr inlocuieste planificarea cu coordonarea. Si acesta este un aspect general al sistemelor cooperative.
Right. You'll have experienced this in your life whenever you bought your first mobile phone, and you stopped making plans. You just said, "I'll call you when I get there." "Call me when you get off work." Right? That is a point-to-point replacement of coordination with planning. Right. We're now able to do that kind of thing with groups. To say instead of, we must make an advance plan, we must have a five-year projection of where the Wikipedia is going to be, or whatever, you can just say, let's coordinate the group effort, and let's deal with it as we go, because we're now well-enough coordinated that we don't have to take on the problems of deciding in advance what to do.
Corect. Ati experimentat acest lucru in viata dumneavoastra cand ati cumparat primul telefon mobil, si ati incetat sa mai faceti planuri. Ati spus doar, te sun cand ajung. Suna-ma cand termini lucrul. Corect? Aceasta este o inlocuire punctuala a coordonarii cu planificarea. Corect. Acum putem face acelasi lucrurile cu grupurile. In loc sa facem un plan in avans, sa facem o proiectie pe cinci ani a unde va fi Wikipedia sau orice altceva, poti sa spui, hai sa coordonam efortul de grup, si hai sa ne ocupam de el pe parcurs, fiindca acum exista suficienta coordonare astfel incat nu trebuie sa ne mai ocupam de problema de a decide in avans ce sa facem.
So here's another example. This one's somewhat more somber. These are photos on Flickr tagged "Iraq." And everything that was hard about the coordination cost with the Mermaid Parade is even harder here. There are more pictures. There are more photographers. It's taken over a wider geographic area. The photos are spread out over a longer period of time. And worst of all, that figure at the bottom, approximately ten photos per photographer, is a lie. It's mathematically true, but it doesn't really talk about anything important -- because in these systems, the average isn't really what matters.
Inca un exemplu. Acesta este unul mai trist. Aceste fotografii au tag-ul "Irak". Si tot ce era dificil cu privire la costurile de coordonare in cazul Paradei Sirenelor este si mai dificil aici. Sunt mai multe fotografii. Sunt mai multi fotografi. Fotografiile acopera o suprafata geografica mult mai mare. Aceste fotografii se intind pe o perioada mai mare de timp. Si, cel mai rau, acea cifra de jos, aproximativ 10 fotografi pe fotograf, este o minciuna. Este matematic corecta, dar nu spune nimic important fiindca in aceste sisteme, media nu este ceea ce conteaza cu adevarat.
What matters is this. This is a graph of photographs tagged Iraq as taken by the 529 photographers who contributed the 5,445 photos. And it's ranked in order of number of photos taken per photographer. You can see here, over at the end, our most prolific photographer has taken around 350 photos, and you can see there's a few people who have taken hundreds of photos. Then there's dozens of people who've taken dozens of photos. And by the time we get around here, we get ten or fewer photos, and then there's this long, flat tail. And by the time you get to the middle, you've got hundreds of people who have contributed only one photo each.
Ceea ce conteaza este aceasta. Acesta este un graf al fotografiilor cu tag-ul "Irak" facute de 529 de fotografi care au contribuit cu 5445 fotografii. Si sunt aranjate in functie de numarul de fotografii facute de fiecare fotograf. Puteti vedea aici, la sfarsit, ca, cel mai prolific fotograf a facut aproximativ 350 de fotografii si puteti vedea ca sunt putine persoane care au facut sute de fotografii. Sunt duzine de oameni care au facut duzine de fotografii. Si cam cand noi ajungem aici, avem 10 sau mai putine fotografii, si apoi mai este aceasta coada lunga si plata. Si cand ajungem la mijloc, avem sute de oameni care au contribuit cu o singura fotografie.
This is called a power-law distribution. It appears often in unconstrained social systems where people are allowed to contribute as much or as little as they like -- this is often what you get. Right? The math behind the power-law distribution is that whatever's in the nth position is doing about one-nth of whatever's being measured, relative to the person in the first position. So, we'd expect the tenth most prolific photographer to have contributed about a tenth of the photos, and the hundredth most prolific photographer to have contributed only about a hundred as many photos as the most prolific photographer did. So, the head of the curve can be sharper or flatter. But that basic math accounts both for the steep slope and for the long, flat tail.
Acesta se numeste o distributie dupa regula puterilor. Apare des in sisteme sociale neconstranse unde oamenilor li se permite sa contribuie cu cat de mult sau putin vor ei, si asta se intalneste des. Corect? Calculul din spatele distributiei regula puterilor este ca oricine ar fi la pozitia n face aproximativ 1/n din ceea ce este masurat, fata de persoana din prima pozitie. Deci este de asteptat ca al zecelea fotograf din punct de vedere al productivitatii sa fi contribuit cu o zecime din fotografii, iar fotograful aflat la pozitia 100 in ceea ce priveste productivitatea sa fi contribuit cu de o suta de ori mai putine fotografii fata de cel mai prolific fotograf. Deci varful curbei poate fi mai ascutit sau mai plat. Dar matematica aflata la baza raspunde atat pentru curba abrupta cat si pentru coada lunga, plata.
And curiously, in these systems, as they grow larger, the systems don't converge; they diverge more. In bigger systems, the head gets bigger and the tail gets longer, so the imbalance increases. You can see the curve is obviously heavily left-weighted. Here's how heavily: if you take the top 10 percent of photographers contributing to this system, they account for three quarters of the photos taken -- just the top 10 percent most prolific photographers. If you go down to five percent, you're still accounting for 60 percent of the photos. If you go down to one percent, exclude 99 percent of the group effort, you're still accounting for almost a quarter of the photos. And because of this left weighting, the average is actually here, way to the left. And that sounds strange to our ears, but what ends up happening is that 80 percent of the contributors have contributed a below-average amount. That sounds strange because we expect average and middle to be about the same, but they're not at all.
Si, in mod curios, in aceste sisteme, cu cat cresc mai mari, sistemele nu converg, ci diverg mai mult. In sistemele mai mari, capul devine mai mare, si coada devine mai lunga, deci dezechilibrul creste. Se poate vedea ca curba este, in mod evident, puternic inclinata catre stanga. Iata cat de mult. Daca luam primii 10% dintre fotografii care contribuie la sistem, ei au realizat trei sferturi din fotografiile facute -- doar primii 10% cei mai prolifici fotografi. Daca coboram la 5%, ei au realizat 60% din fotografii. Daca coboram la un procent, excludem 99% din efortul de grup, avem aproape 1/4 din fotografii. Si datorita acestei inclinari la stanga, media este aici, mult in stanga. Si asta suna ciudat, dar ceea ce rezulta este ca 80% din contributori au contribuit cu o cantitate sub medie. Asta suna ciudat fiindca ne asteptam ca media si mijlocul sa fie acelasi, dar nu sunt deloc asa.
This is the math underlying the 80/20 rule. Right? Whenever you hear anybody talking about the 80/20 rule, this is what's going on. Right? 20 percent of the merchandise accounts for 80 percent of the revenue, 20 percent of the users use 80 percent of the resources -- this is the shape people are talking about when that happens. Institutions only have two tools: carrots and sticks. And the 80 percent zone is a no-carrot and no-stick zone. The costs of running the institution mean that you cannot take on the work of those people easily in an institutional frame. The institutional model always pushes leftwards, treating these people as employees. The institutional response is, I can get 75 percent of the value for 10 percent of the hires -- great, that's what I'll do. The cooperative infrastructure model says, why do you want to give up a quarter of the value? If your system is designed so that you have to give up a quarter of the value, re-engineer the system. Don't take on the cost that prevents you from getting to the contributions of these people. Build the system so that anybody can contribute at any amount.
Acest calcul sta la baza regulii 80/20. Corect? Ori de cate ori auziti pe cineva vorbind de regula lui 80/20, asta se intampla. Corect? 20% din marfa reprezinta 80% din venit, 20% din utilizatori folosesc 80% din resurse -- acesta este forma despre care vorbesc oamenii atunci cand se intampla asa ceva. Institutiile au doar doua instrumente: recompense si sanctiuni. Si zona 80% este o zone fara recompense si fara sanctiuni. Costurile pentru a conduce o institutie inseamna ca nu se poate include usor munca acelor oameni intr-un cadru institutional. Modelul institutional impinge intotdeauna catre stanga, tratand aceste persoane ca angajati. Raspunsul institutional este, pot obtine 75% din valoare angajand doar 10% -- perfect. Asta voi face. Modelul infrastructurii cooperative spune, de ce vrei sa renunti la un sfert din valoare? Daca sistemul tau este creat astfel incat trebuie sa renunti la un sfert din valoare, re-construieste sistemul. Nu prelua costul care te impiedica sa ajungi la contributiile acestor oameni, construieste sistemul astfel incat oricine poate contribui cu orice cantitate.
So the coordination response asks not, how are these people as employees, but rather, what is their contribution like? Right? We have over here Psycho Milt, a Flickr user, who has contributed one, and only one, photo titled "Iraq." And here's the photo. Right. Labeled, "Bad Day at Work." Right? So the question is, do you want that photo? Yes or no. The question is not, is Psycho Milt a good employee?
Deci raspunsul coordonat nu intreaba cum se comporta acesti oameni ca angajati, ci mai curand, cum este contributia lor? Corect? Il avem aici pe Psycho Milt, un utilizator Flickr, care a contribuit cu o singura fotografie cu tag-ul "Iraq". Si iata aici fotografia. Corect. Intitulata, "O zi proasta la munca." Corect? Deci intrebarea este, vreti fotografia asta? Da sau nu. Intrebarea nu este, este Psycho Milt un bun angajat?
And the tension here is between institution as enabler and institution as obstacle. When you're dealing with the left-hand edge of one of these distributions, when you're dealing with the people who spend a lot of time producing a lot of the material you want, that's an institution-as-enabler world. You can hire those people as employees, you can coordinate their work and you can get some output. But when you're down here, where the Psycho Milts of the world are adding one photo at a time, that's institution as obstacle.
Si tensiunea aici este intre institutia ca facilitator si institutia ca obstacol. Cand avem de-a face cu partea din stanga a uneia dintre aceste distributii, cand ai de-a face cu oameni care petrec mult timp producand mult din materialul pe care il vrei, atunci institutia este o lume care faciliteaza. Poti angaja acesti oameni, le poti coordona munca si poti obtine ceva rezultate. Dar cand esti aici jos unde toti Psycho Milts din lume adauga o singura fotografie, atunci institutia este un obstacol.
Institutions hate being told they're obstacles. One of the first things that happens when you institutionalize a problem is that the first goal of the institution immediately shifts from whatever the nominal goal was to self-preservation. And the actual goal of the institution goes to two through n. Right? So, when institutions are told they are obstacles, and that there are other ways of coordinating the value, they go through something a little bit like the Kubler-Ross stages -- (Laughter) -- of reaction, being told you have a fatal illness: denial, anger, bargaining, acceptance. Most of the cooperative systems we've seen haven't been around long enough to have gotten to the acceptance phase.
Institutiile urasc sa li se spuna ca sunt obstacole. Unul din primele lucruri care se intampla cand institutionalizezi o problema este ca primul scop al unei institutii se muta imediat de la scopul nominal, oricare era acesta, la conservarea de sine. Si scopul actual al institutiei merge de la 2 la n Corect? Deci cand institutiilor li se spune ca sunt obstacole, si ca sunt alte modalitati pentru a coordona valoarea, ele trec prin ceva asemanator stadiilor Kubler-Ross -- (Rasete) ale reactiei la vestea ca ai o boala letala: negare, furie, negociere, acceptare. Multe dintre sistemele cooperative pe care le-am vazut nu au existat suficient de mult timp pentru a ajunge la faza de acceptare.
Many, many institutions are still in denial, but we're seeing recently a lot of both anger and bargaining. There's a wonderful, small example going on right now. In France, a bus company is suing people for forming a carpool, right, because the fact that they have coordinated themselves to create cooperative value is depriving them of revenue. You can follow this in the Guardian. It's actually quite entertaining.
Multe, multe institutii sunt inca in faza de negare, dar am vazut recent atat multa furie cit si negociere. Exista un mic, minunat exemplu chiar acum. In Franta, o firma de autobuze da in judecata persoanele care au format o asociatie de masini, corect, fiindca faptul ca ei s-au coordonat pentru a crea valoare cooperativa lipseste firma de autobuze de venit. Puteti citi despre asta in the Guardian. Este chiar destul de distractiv.
The bigger question is, what do you do about the value down here? Right? How do you capture that? And institutions, as I've said, are prevented from capturing that. Steve Ballmer, now CEO of Microsoft, was criticizing Linux a couple of years ago, and he said, "Oh, this business of thousands of programmers contributing to Linux, this is a myth. We've looked at who's contributed to Linux, and most of the patches have been produced by programmers who've only done one thing." Right? You can hear this distribution under that complaint. And you can see why, from Ballmer's point of view, that's a bad idea, right? We hired this programmer, he came in, he drank our Cokes and played Foosball for three years and he had one idea. (Laughter) Right? Bad hire. Right? (Laughter)
Intrebarea principala este, ce faci cu valoarea de aici de jos? Corect? Cum o capturezi? Si institutiile, dupa cum am spus, sunt impiedicate sa o captureze. Steve Ballmer, acum CEO la Microsoft, critica Linux acum cativa ani, si a spus, oh, aceasta afacere a mii de programatori care contribuie la Linux, este un mit. Corect? Ne-am uitat la cei care au contribuit la Linux, si multe dintre parti au fost produse de programatori care au facut doar un singur lucru.Corect? Aceasta critica se refera la acest tip de distributie. Si puteti vedea de ce, din punctul de vedere al lui Ballmer, asta este o idee proasta, nu-i asa? Am angajat acest programator, a venit, ne-a baut Coca-Cola a jucat Foosball trei ani si a avut o singura idee. (Rasete) Corect. Un angajat prost. Corect? (Rasete)
The Psycho Milt question is, was it a good idea? What if it was a security patch? What if it was a security patch for a buffer overflow exploit, of which Windows has not some, [but] several? Do you want that patch, right? The fact that a single programmer can, without having to move into a professional relation to an institution, improve Linux once and never be seen from again, should terrify Ballmer. Because this kind of value is unreachable in classic institutional frameworks, but is part of cooperative systems of open-source software, of file sharing,
Intrebare gen "Psycho Milt" este, a fost o idee buna? Daca a fost o parte referitoare la securitate? Dar daca a fost un program de securitate pentru buffer overflow exploit, din care Windows are nu citeva -- ci foarte multe? Vreti acel program, corect? Faptul ca un singur programator poate, fara a trebui sa intre intr-o relatie profesionala cu o institutie, imbunatati Linux o data pentru a nu mai fi vazut din nou, ar trebui sa il ingrozeasca pe Ballmer. Fiindca acest tip de valoare nu poate fi realizat in cadre institutionale clasice, ci este parte al sistemelor cooperative de software open source, file sharing
of the Wikipedia. I've used a lot of examples from Flickr, but there are actually stories about this from all over. Meetup, a service founded so that users could find people in their local area who share their interests and affinities and actually have a real-world meeting offline in a cafe or a pub or what have you. When Scott Heiferman founded Meetup, he thought it would be used for, you know, train spotters and cat fanciers -- classic affinity groups. The inventors don't know what the invention is. Number one group on Meetup right now, most chapters in most cities with most members, most active? Stay-at-home moms. Right? In the suburbanized, dual-income United States, stay-at-home moms are actually missing the social infrastructure that comes from extended family and local, small-scale neighborhoods. So they're reinventing it, using these tools. Meetup is the platform, but the value here is in social infrastructure. If you want to know what technology is going to change the world, don't pay attention to 13-year-old boys -- pay attention to young mothers, because they have got not an ounce of support for technology that doesn't materially make their lives better. This is so much more important than Xbox, but it's a lot less glitzy.
Wikipedia. Am folosit multe example de la Flickr, dar, de fapt, exista acest tip de povesti peste tot. Meetup, un serviciu creat astfel incat utilizatorii sa poata gasi persoane in zona lor locala care impartasesc aceleasi interese si afinitati si sa se poate intalni offline in lumea reala intr-o cafenea sau bar sau orice altceva. Cand Scott Heiferman a creat Meetup, a crezut ca ar putea putea fi folosit, stiti, de catre cei care pindesc trenurile si crescatori de pisici -- grupurile clasice cu aceleasi afinitati. Inventatorii nu stiu care este inventia. Grupul numarul unu pe Meetup acum, cele mai multe filiale in cele mai multe orase cu cei mai multi membri, cei mai activi? Mamele casnice. Corect? In Statele Unite, suburbanizate, cu venituri duale, mamelor casnice le lipseste de fapt infrastructura sociala care se naste dintr-o familie extinsa si comunitati locale mici. Deci ele o reinventeaza folosind aceste instrumente. Meetup este platforma, dar valoarea aici este in infrastructura sociala. Daca vreti sa stiti ce tehnologie va schimba lumea, nu dati atentie baietilor de 13 ani -- dati atentie mamelor tinere, fiindca ele nu au un gram de suport pentru tehnologia care nu le imbunatateste material viata. Acesta este mult mai important decat Xbox, dar este mult mai putin stralucitor.
I think this is a revolution. I think that this is a really profound change in the way human affairs are arranged. And I use that word advisedly. It's a revolution in that it's a change in equilibrium. It's a whole new way of doing things, which includes new downsides. In the United States right now, a woman named Judith Miller is in jail for not having given to a Federal Grand Jury her sources -- she's a reporter for the New York Times -- her sources, in a very abstract and hard-to-follow case. And journalists are in the street rallying to improve the shield laws. The shield laws are our laws -- pretty much a patchwork of state laws -- that prevent a journalist from having to betray a source. This is happening, however, against the background of the rise of Web logging. Web logging is a classic example of mass amateurization. It has de-professionalized publishing. Want to publish globally anything you think today? It is a one-button operation that you can do for free. That has sent the professional class of publishing down into the ranks of mass amateurization. And so the shield law, as much as we want it -- we want a professional class of truth-tellers -- it is becoming increasingly incoherent, because the institution is becoming incoherent. There are people in the States right now tying themselves into knots, trying to figure out whether or not bloggers are journalists. And the answer to that question is, it doesn't matter, because that's not the right question. Journalism was an answer to an even more important question, which is, how will society be informed? How will they share ideas and opinions? And if there is an answer to that that happens outside the professional framework of journalism, it makes no sense to take a professional metaphor and apply it to this distributed class. So as much as we want the shield laws, the background -- the institution to which they were attached -- is becoming incoherent.
Cred ca este o revolutie. Cred ca este o schimbare profunda in modul in care problemele umane se rezolva. Si folosesc acest cuvant cu prudenta. Este o revolutie in sensul ca este o schimbare in echilibru. Este un nou mod de a face lucrurile care include si noi efecte adverse. Chiar acum, in Statele Unite, o femeie pe nume Judith Miller, este in inchisoare pentru ca nu a dat unui Mare Juriu Federal sursele ei -- ea este un reporter la New York Times -- sursele ei intr-un caz foarte abstract si dificil de urmarit. Si ziaristii sunt in strada demonstrand pentru a imbunatati legile scut. Legile scut sunt legile noastre -- cam ca un amestec de legi statale -- care impiedica un jurnalist sa-si tradeze o sursa. Aceasta se intampla, totusi, pe fundalul raspindirii blog-ului. Blog-ul este un exemplu clasic de amatorizare in masa. Publicarea este deprofesionalizata. Vrei sa publici la nivel global orice gandesti astazi? Trebuie doar sa apesi pe un buton si o poti face gratis. Aceasta a trimis clasa profesionala a publicistilor jos in randul amatorilor in masa. Si deci legea scutului, oricat am dori noi -- noi dorim o clasa profesionala de oameni care spun adevarul -- devine din ce in ce mai incoerenta deoarece institutia devine incoerenta. Sunt oameni in Statele Unite chiar acum nedumeriti si incercand sa inteleaga daca bloggerii sunt jurnalisti sau nu. Si raspunsul la aceasta intrebare este, nu conteaza, fiindca nu aceasta este intrebarea corecta. Jurnalismul a fost raspunsul la o intrebare mult mai importanta, care este, cum va fi societatea informata? Cum vor fi impartasite ideile si opiniile? Si daca exista la asta un raspuns care este in afara cadrului profesional al jurnalismului, nu are nici un sens sa luam o metafora profesionala si sa o aplicam la aceasta clasa distribuita. Deci oricat de mult ne dorim legi scut, fundalul -- institutia la care sunt ele atasate devine incoerenta.
Here's another example. Pro-ana, the pro-ana groups. These are groups of teenage girls who have taken on Web logs, bulletin boards, other kinds of cooperative infrastructure, and have used it to set up support groups for remaining anorexic by choice. They post pictures of thin models, which they call "thinspiration." They have little slogans, like "Salvation through Starvation." They even have Lance Armstrong-style bracelets, these red bracelets, which signify, in the small group, I am trying to maintain my eating disorder. They trade tips, like, if you feel like eating something, clean a toilet or the litter box. The feeling will pass.
Iata un alt exemplu. Pro-ana, grupurile Pro-ana. Sunt grupuri de adolescente care au creat bloguri, buletine informative, alte tipuri de infrastructuri cooperative, si au folosit-o pentru a sustine grupuri pentru a ramane anorexice in mod deliberat. Posteaza fotografii ale unor modele slabe, pe care le cheama Thinspiration. Au mici sloganuri, ca Salvare prin Infometare, au chiar bratari tip Lance Armstrong, acele bratari rosii, care semnifica, in acest mic grup, Incerc sa imi mentin dezechilibrul alimentar. Ele schimba sfaturi, cum ar fi, daca ai pofta sa mananci ceva curata o toaleta sau cutia animalului. Pofta va disparea.
We're used to support groups being beneficial. We have an attitude that support groups are inherently beneficial. But it turns out that the logic of the support group is value neutral. A support group is simply a small group that wants to maintain a way of living in the context of a larger group. Now, when the larger group is a bunch of drunks, and the small group wants to stay sober, then we think, that's a great support group. But when the small group is teenage girls who want to stay anorexic by choice, then we're horrified. What's happened is that the normative goals of the support groups that we're used to, came from the institutions that were framing them, and not from the infrastructure. Once the infrastructure becomes generically available, the logic of the support group has been revealed to be accessible to anyone, including people pursuing these kinds of goals.
Suntem obisnuiti ca grupurile de suport sa fie benefice. Consideram ca grupurile de suport sunt benefice in mod natural. Dar rezulta ca logica grupului de sprijin nu are valoare in sine. Un grup de sprijin este doar un mic grup care vrea sa mentina un stil de viata in contextul unui grup mai mare. Acum, cand grupul mai mare este o adunatura de betivi si grupul mic vrea sa ramana treaz, atunci noi credem, ca este un grup de sprijin perfect. Dar cand micul grup este format din adolescente care aleg sa ramana anorexice, atunci suntem ingroziti. Ceea ce se intampla este ca scopurile normative ale grupurilor de sprijin cu care eram obisnuiti veneau din institutii care le incadrau, si nu din infrastructura. Odata ce infrastructura devine disponibila in mod generic, logica grupurilor de sprijin s-a dovedit a fi accesibila oricui, inclusiv persoanelor care urmaresc acest tip de scopuri.
So, there are significant downsides to these changes as well as upsides. And of course, in the current environment, one need allude only lightly to the work of non-state actors trying to influence global affairs, and taking advantage of these. This is a social map of the hijackers and their associates who perpetrated the 9/11 attack. It was produced by analyzing their communications patterns using a lot of these tools. And doubtless the intelligence communities of the world are doing the same work today for the attacks of last week.
Deci sunt neajunsuri semnificative ale acestor schimbari ca si efecte pozitive. Si, bineinteles, in mediul actual, trebuie sa ne referim doar putin la activitatea actorilor non-statali care incearca sa influenteze problemele globale si sa profite de acestea. Aceasta este o harta sociala a teroristilor si a asociatilor lor care au savarsit atacul din 11 septembrie 2001. A fost facuta prin analiza modelelor de comunicatii folosind multe dintre aceste instrumente. Si, fara indoiala, comunitatile de informatii ale lumii fac aceeasi activitate astazi pentru atacurile de saptamana trecuta.
Now, this is the part of the talk where I tell you what's going to come as a result of all of this, but I'm running out of time, which is good, because I don't know. (Laughter) Right. As with the printing press, if it's really a revolution, it doesn't take us from Point A to Point B. It takes us from Point A to chaos. The printing press precipitated 200 years of chaos, moving from a world where the Catholic Church was the sort of organizing political force to the Treaty of Westphalia, when we finally knew what the new unit was: the nation state.
Acum, aceasta este partea discursului unde va spun care va fi rezultatul acestei situatii, dar mi se termina timpul, ceea ce este bine, fiindca nu stiu. (Rasete) Corect. Cum a fost si in cazul tiparului, daca este realmente o revolutie, nu ne duce de la Punctul A la Punctul B. Ne duce de la Punctul A la haos. Tiparul a adus 200 de ani de haos, mutandu-ne de la o lume in care Biserica Catolica era un fel de forta politica organizatoare la Tratatul de la Westphalia cand am vazut in sfarsit care era noua entitate: statul national.
Now, I'm not predicting 200 years of chaos as a result of this. 50. 50 years in which loosely coordinated groups are going to be given increasingly high leverage, and the more those groups forego traditional institutional imperatives -- like deciding in advance what's going to happen, or the profit motive -- the more leverage they'll get. And institutions are going to come under an increasing degree of pressure, and the more rigidly managed, and the more they rely on information monopolies, the greater the pressure is going to be. And that's going to happen one arena at a time, one institution at a time. The forces are general, but the results are going to be specific.
Acum, nu prezic 200 de ani de haos ca rezultat al acesteia. 50. 50 de ani in care grupuri slab coordonate vor dobandi tot mai multa influenta si cu cat mai multe dintre aceste grupuri vor anticipa imperativele institutionale traditionale ca deciderea in avans a ceea ce urmeaza sa se intample, sau motivatia profitului -- cu atit mai multa influenta vor primi. Si institutiile vor suporta din ce in ce mai multa presiune si cu cit sunt conduse mai rigid, si cu cat mai mult se vor baza pe monopoluri informationale, cu atat mai mare va fi presiunea. Si aceasta se va intampla cu fiecare arena, cu fiecare institutie. Fortele sunt generale, dar rezultatele vor fi specifice.
And so the point here is not, "This is wonderful," or "We're going to see a transition from only institutions to only cooperative framework." It's going to be much more complicated than that. But the point is that it's going to be a massive readjustment. And since we can see it in advance and know it's coming, my argument is essentially: we might as well get good at it. Thank you very much. (Applause)
Deci ideea aici nu este, "este minunat" sau "vom vedea o tranzitie de la doar institutii la doar cadre cooperative." Va fi mult mai complicat de atat. Dar idea este ca va fi o readaptare masiva. Si deoarece o putem vedea in avans si stim ca va avea loc, argumentul meu este, in esenta, ca am putea sa ne descurcam bine, de asemenea. Va multumesc foarte mult. (Aplauze)